The older I get the more stupid young people seem to be getting, I don’t get it, did they not teach the same things in school as when I went to school? Jesse Waters of Waters World fame went on the prowl for a Memorial Day quiz of young people, here’s a small sample taken from the Blaze.

“Who did America fight in the Revolutionary War?” asked Watters to several beach goers.

PThere was sufficient concern among Democrats (I call them by their more appropriate name—secular humanists), the left-leaning media (pardon the redundancy) and several Rino Republicans about the possibility of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to cause the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. Of course, the suspicion has been postulated time and again by each of the above-mentioned groups (let’s call them ‘the Big 3’) that President Donald Trump possibly colluded with the Russian government to somehow affect the outcome of the election.

To date, there have been numerous allegations made by ‘unnamed sources’, but nothing of evidentiary value has been produced, despite the best efforts of the Big 3. Someone from the Trump campaign, according to ‘unnamed sources, both inside and outside the current administration ’, was in contact with a Russian official for some unspecified but undoubtedly nefarious reason, and the Special Prosecutor must investigate the matter.

Surely, the reasoning goes, Trump’s team would have no other reason to contact anybody in Russia except to solicit their assistance in helping Trump win the election, or to break the law in one way or the other.

Many of the Big 3 have concluded that Russia hacked the Democrat National Committee emails and afforded that information to Julian Assange of Wikileaks, who made all that information available to the American public. Never mind that Assange has steadfastly denied the Russians had any involvement and has indeed stated he obtained the emails from someone associated directly with the DNC. It is noteworthy that the truth of the content of those leaked emails has never been challenged—only the identity of the leaker. So when Hillary blames the Russians and Trump—highly unlikely sources, particularly in tandem—for the leaks, she is in essence admitting that everything in those emails . . . Is absolutely true. Typical Clinton—it’s not my fault, it’s the fault of those who told the truth about me.

An aside to illustrate the fuzziness of Big 3 thinking; How is it that the Russians obtained everything from the DNC emails, but were never successful in penetrating the highly secure private server, admittedly kept in a broom closet somewhere in Colorado, on which Hillary Clinton conducted State Department business? We have not only her word but that of former president Barack Obama that no secure information on Hillary’s private server was ever compromised.

Have the Big 3 built a convincing case that the Russians would have chosen Donald Trump as their choice to lead the American government as opposed to his rival, Hillary Clinton?

What has Trump done, aside from welcoming Russian assistance in wiping out ISIS, to persuade the Russians that he would be an easy mark? No, not what has he been accused of doing, but what has he provably donethat was in the best interests of Russia?

Well, what about Hillary? Has she or any of her campaign team done anything that could possibly benefit the Russians?

There are a couple of things that have escaped the attention or interest of the Big 3.

One is the fact that the head of Hillary’s campaign, John Podesta, in 2011 was made a board member of a small energy company called Joule, headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Two months after his appointment, a Russian investment company called RUSNANO (a business started in 2007 by VLADIMIR PUTIN; “Putin’s Child”) invested one billion rubles in Joule. Why?

According to State Department cables leaked via Wikileaks, technology venture funds like Rusnano were considered a national security concern by U.S. officials because they could serve a “dual use” in their investments. That is, their investments in civilian technologies could have a military application.

In short, John Podesta was business partners with the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. When John Podesta went to the White House in January 2014 to serve as counselor to President Obama, he failed to disclose his board membership in one of the Joule entities on his financial disclosure form. According to the Podesta emails, Podesta transferred his 75,000 shares in the company to an LLC controlled by his family. But as theWall Street Journalnotes, the Podesta emails reveal he remained actively engaged in company business after that fact.

That’s interesting. The Director of Hillary’s campaign had more than a casual relationship with a company of undoubted interest to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Secondly, in 2005, Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan with a mine owner named Frank Giustra in Giustra’s private jet. With Clinton’s help, Giustra was successful in purchasing 17% of Khazakztan’s uranium. Giustra, who later reformed his company (now called Uranium One) also procured uranium concessions in the United States; approximately twenty percent (20%) of American production .

One can hardly blame the Russian website ‘Pravda’ (sound familiar?) for trumpeting, “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World”. That 2013 article told how Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, had taken over a Canadian company, thereby becoming one of the world’s largest producers of uranium.

The New York Times—hardly a conservative rag—published an article in 2015 noting, “Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton (aka Bill) received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was at that time promoting Uranium One stock.”

With all the assistance the Clinton’s provided the Russians in obtaining American uranium, it might appear as though Putin had more to gain from a Clinton presidency than a Trump administration.

By the way, did the transfer of control of 20% of American uranium production to a foreign entity require the approval of the State Department? In a word, yes. However, a spokesman for the Clinton Presidential campaign said, and I quote, “(no one) has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

What prompted that statement issued by Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon?

It could have been the fact that Mr. Giustra donated $31.3 million,and promised $100 million more, to the Clinton Foundation after the deal Bill Clinton helped facilitate to purchase uranium from Kazakhstan. Members of the Uranium One Company contributed a total of $245 million to the Clinton Foundation. The money did not go directly into Ms. Clinton’s bank account. It was donated to the Clinton Foundation, of which she is only one of three principals. The other two are her husband Bill and her daughter Chelsea. D

Ah . . . There’s nothing to see here . . . move along. Especially when you have all those ubiquitous “unnamed” sources telling you they are sure that Donald J Trump made a deal with the Russians. They cannot provide—ah—“a shred of evidence”, but they are sure that something treasonous happened. Now, that’s hot stuff! One can easily see why the Justice Department would have to assign at least a thousand FBI Agents to investigate hot ‘rumors’ like that!

There was sufficient concern among Democrats (I call them by their more appropriate name—secular humanists), the left-leaning media (pardon the redundancy) and several Rino Republicans about the possibility of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election to cause the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to look into the matter. Of course, the suspicion has been postulated time and again by each of the above-mentioned groups (let’s call them ‘the Big 3’) that President Donald Trump possibly colluded with the Russian government to somehow affect the outcome of the election.

To date, there have been numerous allegations made by ‘unnamed sources’, but nothing of evidentiary value has been produced, despite the best efforts of the Big 3. Someone from the Trump campaign, according to ‘unnamed sources, both inside and outside the current administration ’, was in contact with a Russian official for some unspecified but undoubtedly nefarious reason, and the Special Prosecutor must investigate the matter.

Surely, the reasoning goes, Trump’s team would have no other reason to contact anybody in Russia except to solicit their assistance in helping Trump win the election, or to break the law in one way or the other.

Many of the Big 3 have concluded that Russia hacked the Democrat National Committee emails and afforded that information to Julian Assange of Wikileaks, who made all that information available to the American public. Never mind that Assange has steadfastly denied the Russians had any involvement and has indeed stated he obtained the emails from someone associated directly with the DNC. It is noteworthy that the truth of the content of those leaked emails has never been challenged—only the identity of the leaker. So when Hillary blames the Russians and Trump—highly unlikely sources, particularly in tandem—for the leaks, she is in essence admitting that everything in those emails . . . Is absolutely true. Typical Clinton—”It’s not my fault. It’s the fault of those who told the truth about me.”

An aside to illustrate the fuzziness of Big 3 thinking; How is it that the Russians obtained everything from the DNC emails, but were never successful in penetrating the highly secure private server, admittedly kept in a broom closet somewhere in Colorado, on which Hillary Clinton conducted State Department business? We have not only her word but that of former president Barack Obama that no secure information on Hillary’s private server was ever compromised.

Have the Big 3 built a convincing case that the Russians would have chosen Donald Trump as their choice to lead the American government as opposed to his rival, Hillary Clinton?

What has Trump done, aside from welcoming Russian assistance in wiping out ISIS, to persuade that rogue nation that he would be an easy mark? No, not what has he been accused of doing, but what has he provably donethat was in the best interests of Russia?

Well, what about Hillary? Has she or any of her campaign team done anything that could possibly benefit the Russians?

There are a couple of things that have escaped the attention or interest of the Big 3. One is the fact that the head of Hillary’s campaign, John Podesta, in 2011 was made a board member of a small energy company called Joule, headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Two months after his appointment, a Russian investment company called RUSNANO (a business started in 2007 by VLADIMIR PUTIN; “Putin’s Child”) invested one billion rubles in Joule. Why?

According to State Department cables leaked via Wikileaks, technology venture funds like Rusnano were considered a national security concern by U.S. officials because they could serve a “dual use” in their investments. That is, their investments in civilian technologies could have a military application.

In short, John Podesta was business partners with the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. When John Podesta went to the White House in January 2014 to serve as counselor to President Obama, he failed to disclose his board membership in one of the Joule entities on his financial disclosure form. According to the Podesta emails, Podesta transferred his 75,000 shares in the company to an LLC controlled by his family. But as theWall Street Journalnotes, the Podesta emails reveal he remained actively engaged in company business after that fact.

That’s interesting. The Director of Hillary’s campaign had more than a casual relationship with a company of undoubted interest to Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

Secondly, in 2005, Bill Clinton traveled to Kazakhstan with Frank Giustra in Giustra’s private jet. With Clinton’s help, Giustra was successful in purchasing 17% of Khazakztan’s uranium. Giustra, who later reformed his company (now called Uranium One) also procured uranium concessions in the United States; approximately twenty percent (20%) of American production .

One can hardly blame the Russian website ‘Pravda’ (sound familiar?) for trumpeting, “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World”. That 2013 article told how Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, had taken over a Canadian company, thereby becoming one of the world’s largest producers of uranium.

The New York Times—hardly a conservative rag—published an article in 2015 noting, “Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton (aka Bill) received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was at that time promoting Uranium One stock.”

With all the assistance the Clinton’s provided the Russians in obtaining American uranium, it might appear as though Putin had more to gain from a Clinton presidency than a Trump administration.

By the way, did the transfer of control of 20% of American uranium production to a foreign entity require the approval of the State Department? In a word, yes. However, a spokesman for the Clinton Presidential campaign said, and I quote, “(no one) has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.”

What prompted that statement issued by Clinton spokesperson Brian Fallon?

Well, it could have been the fact that Mr. Giustra donated $31.3 million and promised $100 million more to the Clinton Foundation after the deal Bill Clinton helped to facilitate to purchase uranium from Kazakhstan. Members of the Uranium One Company contributed a total of $245 million. The money did not go directly into Ms. Clinton’s bank account. It was donated to the Clinton Foundation, of which she is only one of three principals. The other two are her husband Bill and her daughter Chelsea. D

Ah, there’s nothing to see here . . . move along. Especially when you have all those ubiquitous “unnamed” sources illegally leaking classified information supposedly proving conclusively that Donald J Trump made a deal with the Russians. They cannot provide—ah—“a shred of evidence”, but they are sure that something treasonous happened. Now, that’s hot stuff! One can easily see why the Justice Department would have to assign at least a thousand FBI Agents to investigate hot ‘rumors’ like that!

This past week Puerto Rico nationalist Oscar Lopez Rivera was freed from house arrest after serving 35 years in prison. He was considered a top leader of the Armed Forces of National Liberation, or FALN, an ultranationalist Puerto Rican group that claimed responsibility for more than 100 bombings at government buildings, department stores, banks and restaurants in New York, Chicago, Washington and Puerto Rico during the 1970s and early 1980s. The militant group’s attacks killed six people and wounded at least 130 others. Read more.

There is no doubt that the Democratic Party has gone off the rails. Ever since Trump won the election, Democrats have gotten Trump Derangement Syndrome. Day after day I watch in disbelief how Democrat after Democrat gets crazier and crazier, they are still in denial that their candidate lost. It is safe to say that they have become deranged.

Impeach, impeach, impeach that’s all you hear from these losers. What they don’t seem to realize is that there is no evidence of any crime, none. Even Nancy Pelosi recently said, “pushing impeachment are doing so without facts,” we all know how wacky this woman is, so when she becomes the voice of reason for the Democratic Party, well what can I say. Read more.

I have always enjoyed history, I wouldn’t call myself a buff, but I do enjoy reading about it. For instance, what do Lincoln, Reagan and Trump have in common? Yes, they are all Republicans; as a matter of fact Lincoln was the very first Republican President, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, modernists and ex-Whigs, in 1854, after that the Whig Party became the Republican Party. Read more.

Do you know that we now have the equipment and expertise to keep a person alive indefinitely? Maybe not REALLY alive, but with vital signs indicative that life still exists.

I wouldn’t want that. My wife and I have living wills, directing our mate and family to refuse any extraordinary measures to keep us alive after an illness or injury that incapacitates us, without a hope of recovery. To do otherwise would not only be a drain on our family’s limited resources, it would also take years off her life taking care of me, or the other way around. Why? So that I can lie there and vegetate, incapable of speaking, understanding, even feeding myself for months into years? No, thank you.

You know where I am headed with this, don’t you?

Jimmy Kimmel made a passionate plea for the continuation of Obamacare in discussing his own child born with a severe heart defect. My heart goes out to him and his family. According to Jimmy, however, had the Affordable Care Act not been enacted, there would have been no help for his child. Very moving story—full of half-truths and even lies, but very impassioned.

When is the last time you have heard of a baby being thrown out of a hospital or denied emergency medical treatment because it was born with a devastating, life-threatening abnormality? Go on; take your time; try to recall any instance remotely like that. I’ll wait.

Okay, are you finished? How many?

None. Neither the law nor common decency would permit it.

A more pertinent argument might be whether the child born with a terrible defect gets the very latest, most expensive treatment available and ultra-Herculean efforts to sustain life for as long as possible. Damn the cost—that child must live!!

You may believe that every child deserves that kind of treatment—no child is any more valuable than the next, right? Rich or poor, black or white, brilliant or intellectually challenged. Let’s consider that for a moment.

The plain fact is, we cannot afford to give that kind of treatment, free of charge, to all comers—from the United States or any other nation, because surely you would agree that Japanese or Egyptian or Brazilian or Australian or French or English children are just as valuable as our own American babies. Don’t you? Oh, I can just hear some few of you saying, “Wait, now. We have to draw a line somewhere!”

Ah, there’s the rub. Nobody except Nancy Pelosi believes that the American taxpayer should or could foot the bill for the latest, greatest and most expensive health care for everybody on earth. So we must have some method of limiting access to the very best of care—which, by the way, can be found . . . Where? . . . I forget. Is it France? No. Is it Canada? No. Is it England? No. Russia? Greece? Japan? Italy? Germany? No, no, no, no and no. The best health care in the world is found in the United States of America, precisely because we have thus far not allowed the government total management of that vital one-sixth of our economy.

No country, regardless how wealthy, can provide free health care to an unlimited number of people whose illness or malady, while desperate and needful of care, could cost the taxpayers upward of $1,000,000 a year or more—per patient! That is a sad reality. Hospitals and E R’s are required to administer what aid is necessary to keep a patient alive; to do everything humanly possible to treat them—up to a point. But if the cost of that care exceeds the patient or patient’s family’s ability to pay and they do not have the insurance or personal wealth to cover such costly care, what is to be done? Reasonable people might then say those extraordinary efforts must be curtailed. Not just for John Doe or his child or grandchild, but for the progeny of Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer, Ted Turner or anyone else of wealth and power. I must say if those people have the wherewithal to purchase such treatment out of their own wealth, we have no right to deny them the privilege of spending their money in that way. Do we?

If anyone in your life has ever told you that life is fair, they either didn’t know what they were talking about, or they flat-out lied to you. Even our courts informed us in the 1970s that all Americans are equal, but . . . In certain circumstances, some are more equal than others. Remember Affirmative Action? More recently, these same courts have decreed that motivation can be a huge factor in the sentence one gets for commission of a crime. I’m not sure how you can fine-tune emotion to reach that determination, but if you are deemed to have been motivated by “hate” to murder someone, your sentence may be vastly more severe than if you, say, killed a guy that you liked. Does that make sense to you? The victim is dead in either instance, and I doubt that he is going to rejoice in his grave because a jury adjudged the crime to have been motivated by hatred. It won’t bring him back to life! And you can only put the perpetrator to death once. He can’t even twice serve his entire life in prison. Once is all you get.

But I digress. There are some serious problems we will be required to face in the not-too-distant future—as soon as we figure out how harmful political correctness has been to our nation and quit allowing secular humanists to set our entire agenda. In order to address these issues, we must first acknowledge that we have a problem. THIS—the insurance for those with un-insurable diseases/maladies—is just one of them. Insurance for them, as you might imagine, is very expensive. Not many of us can afford it. We can, by working with a pool of like “un-insurable patients”, obtain catastrophic insurance—still expensive, but shared by a larger pool of those with the same or similar problems, costing much less than trying to buy an individual policy.

Bottom line is, we have finite resources to handle what could rapidly become an overwhelming need—or want; there is a difference. Let me say again—while it is unpleasant either to say or to hear, the plain fact is we cannot afford to pay for the health care of all those who 1) simply don’t want to purchase it for themselves, 2) are in this country illegally and have thus far not even been asked to pay for their insurance OR treatment, in some states, and 3) also provide the most expensive services in the world to a multitude of un-insurable patients.

Does political correctness allow us to consider the cause of a patient’s super-expensive malady? Can we offer less coverage to the man who smokes two or three packages of cigarettes while his lungs are eaten up with cancer? How about the alcoholic who continues drinking although he has cirrhosis of the liver? Or the promiscuous homosexual who through dangerous dating habits contracts aids? These are self-inflicted, in a sense. Are the taxpayers on the hook for all expenses related to their maladies? You see, it is easy to be compassionate regarding a baby born with a defect not of its own doing. Can we recognize the difference and make allowances therefore? You see, while secular humanists have tried hard to erase it, the fact remains, the are consequences to our actions.

We can do what many other nations have done: We can provide what may be good but is also necessarily rationed health care to our citizens. That route will inevitably lead to less research and development, a disincentive to try new methods, a loss of patient-doctor relations and a much poorer product. Sure, it might be “free”. But the participant gives up much freedom to obtain what is neither truly free nor effective.

I do not regard the advice of Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the founders of Obamacare, who sees no reason to live past seventy or so; you ostensibly have little or nothing to offer society, so you might as well die.

President Obama told a woman in July of 2009 that perhaps her mother, with a serious heart condition, ‘may be better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the pain pill’.

No, I do not intend to go quietly to my grave, although when my time does come, would that I could mimic the actions of an old ranch hand I read about years ago.

This fellow had worked as a cowboy for the same man since his teens. He and his boss grew old together. The old cowboy was married, and as he saddled up his horse and left the house on a typical morning shortly after his 80th birthday, he said his usual goodbye to his wife and headed off, supposedly to ride the fence line. When he did not come home that day and stayed out all night, his wife contacted the ranch owner to let him know her husband was missing.

They found the old cowboy on the south forty, lying on his back with his hat over his chest, hands folded beneath it. They first thought he had fallen off his horse, but that was quickly discounted. This man was practically born on a horse. He left no note, but his wife and employer knew what had happened. He had simply concluded his time had come, and he just lay down in the pastures he loved and allowed his soul to leave his body. He didn’t need end-of-life counseling. He knew intuitively that death is a perfectly natural end to the life cycle.

I would hope to have the courage and the faith in God to face my death with that kind of magnanimity. We can only forestall death for a season. It will come to all of us—unless Christ’s return precedes it. Until that time comes, I’m going to try to live life in the most politically incorrect way possible.

Do you know that we now have the equipment and expertise to keep a person alive indefinitely? Maybe not REALLY alive, but with vital signs indicative that life still exists.

I wouldn’t want that. My wife and I have living wills, directing our mate and family to refuse any extraordinary measures to keep us alive after an illness or injury that incapacitates us, without a hope of recovery. To do otherwise would not only be a drain on our family’s limited resources, it would also take years off her life taking care of me, or the other way around. Why? So that I can lie there and vegetate, incapable of speaking, understanding, even feeding myself for months into years? No, thank you.

You know where I am headed with this, don’t you?

Jimmy Kimmel made a passionate plea for the continuation of Obamacare in discussing his own child born with a severe heart defect. My heart goes out to him and his family. According to Jimmy, however, had the Affordable Care Act not been enacted, there would have been no help for his child. Very moving story—full of half-truths and even lies, but very impassioned.

When is the last time you have heard of a baby being thrown out of a hospital or denied emergency medical treatment because it was born with a devastating, life-threatening abnormality?

A more pertinent argument might be whether the child born with a terrible defect gets the very latest, most expensive treatment available and ultra-Herculean efforts to sustain life for as long as possible. Damn the cost—that child must live!!

You may believe that every child deserves that kind of treatment—no child is any more valuable than the next, right? Rich or poor, black or white, brilliant or intellectually challenged. Let’s consider that for a moment.

The plain fact is, we cannot afford to give that kind of treatment, free of charge, to all comers—from the United States or any other nation, because surely you would agree that Japanese or Egyptian or Brazilian or Australian or French or English children are just as valuable as our own American babies. Don’t you? Oh, I can just hear some few of you saying, “Wait, now. We have to draw a line somewhere!”

Ah, there’s the rub. Nobody except Nancy Pelosi believes that the American taxpayer should or could foot the bill for the latest, greatest and most expensive healthcare for everybody on earth. So we must have some method of limiting access to the very best of care—which, by the way, can be found . . . Where? . . . I forget. Is it France? No. Is it Canada? No. Is it England? No. Russia? Greece? Japan? Italy? Germany? No, no, no, no and no. The best health care in the world is found in the United States of America, precisely because we have thus far not allowed the government total management of that vital one-sixth of our economy.

No country, regardless how wealthy, can provide free healthcare to an unlimited number of people whose illness or malady, while desperate and needful of care, could cost the taxpayers upward of $1,000,000 a year or more—per patient! That is a sad reality. Hospitals and E R’s are required to administer what aid is necessary to keep a patient alive; to do everything humanly possible to treat them—up to a point. But if the cost of that care exceeds the patient or patient’s family’s ability to pay and they do not have the insurance or personal wealth to cover such costly care, what is to be done? Reasonable people might then say those extraordinary efforts must be curtailed. Not just for John Doe or his child or grandchild, but for the progeny of Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Chuck Schumer, Ted Turner or anyone else of wealth and power. I must say if those people have the wherewithal to purchase such treatment out of their own wealth, we have no right to deny them the privilege of spending their money in that way. Do we?

If anyone in your life has ever told you that life is fair, they either didn’t know what they were talking about, or they flat-out lied to you. Even our courts informed us in the 1970s that all Americans are equal, but . . . In certain circumstances, some are more equal than others. Remember Affirmative Action? More recently, these same courts have decreed that motivation can be a huge factor in the sentence one gets for commission of a crime. I’m not sure how you can fine-tune emotion to reach that determination, but if you are deemed to have been motivated by “hate” to murder someone, your sentence may be vastly more severe than if you, say, killed a guy that you liked. Does that make sense to you? The victim is dead in either instance, and I doubt that he is going to rejoice in his grave because a jury adjudged the crime to have been motivated by hatred. It won’t bring him back to life! And you can only put the perpetrator to death once. He can’t even twice serve his entire life in prison. Once is all you get.

But I digress. There are some serious problems we will be required to face in the not-too-distant future—as soon as we figure out how harmful political correctness has been to our nation and quit allowing secular humanists to set our entire agenda. In order to address these issues, we must first acknowledge that we have a problem. THIS—the insurance for those with un-insurable diseases/maladies—is just one of them. Insurance for them, as you might imagine, is very expensive. Not many of us can afford it. We can, by working with a pool of like “un-insurable patients”, obtain catastrophic insurance—still expensive, but shared by a larger pool of those with the same or similar problems, costing much less than trying to buy an individual policy.

Bottom line is, we have finite resources to handle what could rapidly become an overwhelming need—or want; there is a difference. Let me say again—while it is unpleasant either to say or to hear, the plain fact is we cannot afford to pay for the healthcare of all those who 1) simply don’t want to purchase it for themselves, 2) are in this country illegally and have thus far not even been asked to pay for their insurance OR treatment, in some states, and 3) also provide the most expensive services in the world to a multitude of un-insurable patients.

Does a person’s lifestyle have a bearing on how much the taxpayer is forced to spend on keeping him alive and somewhat well? In other words, if he smokes two or three packages of cigarettes a day, does that lessen the taxpayer’s responsibility? How about the alcoholic whose drinking results in cirrhosis of the liver? The homosexual whose promiscuity leads to his contracting aids? Do you feel responsible for their medical treatment? You see, it is easy to sympathize with those like Jimmy Kimmel’ baby. Through no fault of its own, it is born with a severe defect. Do we absolutely disregard careless, even reckless behavior’s role in contributing to or causing that now-uninsurable condition for which all taxpayers are to shoulder the cost?

We can do what many other nations have done: We can provide what may be good but is also necessarily rationed health care to our citizens. That route will inevitably lead to less research and development, a disincentive to try new methods of treatment, a loss of patient-doctor relations and a much poorer product. Sure, it might be “free”. But the participant gives up much freedom to obtain what is neither truly free nor effective.

I do not take seriously the advice of Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the founders of Obamacare, who sees no reason to live past seventy or so; you ostensibly have little or nothing to offer society, so you might as well die. Didn’t former president Obama once say if you are seventy-five years old and have a serious illness, maybe you should just go home and take an aspirin? No, I do not intend to go quietly to my grave, although when my time does come, would that I could mimic the actions of an old ranch hand I read about years ago.

This fellow had worked as a cowboy for the same man since his teens. He and his boss grew old together. The old cowboy was married, and as he saddled up his horse and left the house on a typical morning shortly after his 80th birthday, he said his usual goodbye to his wife and headed off, supposedly to ride the fence line. When he did not come home that day and stayed out all night, his wife contacted the ranch owner to let him know her husband was missing.

They found the old cowboy on the south forty, lying on his back with his hat over his chest, hands folded beneath it. They first thought he had fallen off his horse, but that was quickly discounted. This man was practically born on a horse. He left no note, but his wife and employer knew what had happened. He had simply concluded his time had come, and he just lay down in the pastures he loved and allowed his soul to leave his body.You see, he didn’t need ‘death counselors’ to prepare him to face something quite natural in the cycle of life.

I would hope to have the courage and the faith in God to face death with that kind of magnanimity. We can only forestall death for a season, even if we are the most fully insured people on planet earth. It will come to all of us—unless Christ’s return precedes it. Until that time comes, I’m going to try to live life in the most politically incorrect way possible.

A while back I wrote an article titled“America Is In The Age OfStupidity” but I must apologize to America, it seems that not only America is infected by stupidity, but it is also infecting most of the world as well. What I am about to tell you is not fake news, these things are actually happening although it is kind of hard to believe. Read more.

Another Earth Day has come and gone; as I watched people marching across America on TV I said to myself, “I bet 90% of these people have no clue what they are marching for.” Then, while being interviewed, some said that climate change was a bigger threat to the U.S. than ISIS. WOW, talk about brain dead people. Read more.